Ricardo's report v Man Utd

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

We could clearly Observe that Wes was having an excellent game and receiving the ball regularly in uncomfortable areas for united.

We could also observe the Redmond was a regular threat to them that they failed to subdue (his product was erratic, but he caused them a structural issue).

Leaving these two players on was positive and aggressive as they were the likely sources of creating an equaliser.

The combination if these two drifting into the space ahead of the midfield was awkward for United and ensured that their defensive line rarely progressed forward.

Elmander offers neither the penetration of Redmond, nor the awkwardness of dealing with Hoolahan. Troubling united tactically is no mean feat and occasions risks defensively as discussed.

A further striker in the form of Elmander or Becchio would thus not have made us more threatening to united, which we were throughout, as it would have necessitated the removal of our key threats who were performing well on the day and already threatening.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

-------------Parma Ham''s gone mouldy---------

United have players of high class and intelligent fluidity.

Giggs was replaced by welbeck who moved regularly between the the midfield and forward lines forcing Johnson to play a few yards deeper and further isolating Fer. Redmond offers little to the defensive structural shape and Hoolahan cannot patrol the central midfield area with authority and was not asked to.

It was therefore positive to leave this situation unchanged as we were already risking a great deal defensively.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I am sure United have an amazing squad, although looking at the table not as great as usual this season. They had an off day, sorely missed RvP and Rooney and created barely anything of note throughout the entire match today.

But the simple fact is. once we went behind, and the 2nd half continued as it started with us creating nothing, something had to surely change. We changed nothing, and we created exactly nothing of note.

As I stated earlier, one thing we know for sure is that sticking when the game drifted away from us didn''t work today, and twisting certainly worked for Moyes when we were in control.

[Rogue Baboon 0]

441 plus hoolahan, he seemed to be everywhere. In the first half he ran the show & it was refreshing to see him have so much freedom to effect the play

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

----[quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]----

A further striker in the form of Elmander or Becchio would thus not have made us more threatening to united, which we were throughout, as it would have necessitated the removal of our key threats who were performing well on the day and already threatening.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

No offence Parma, but we barely threatened the United goal in the second half, if at all.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

I watched the game as a coach. You watched it as a fan who has a premeditated dislike of the manager.

Any implication - whether direct or tangentially implied - that the management of the game was negative is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

Norwich were excellent today, Hughton took huge risks structurally to cause tactical problems for United throughout (Hughton cannot control end result, only patterns).

You are - not unreasonably as a fan - confusing result with process.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

-------------------Parma Ham''s gone mouldy--------

I watched the game as a coach. You watched it as a fan who has a premeditated dislike of the manager.

Any implication - whether direct or tangentially implied - that the management of the game was negative is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I don''t think the management was negative. I think, as with the last two games, he did exactly NOTHING to change the flow of the game when it was drifting away from us. Against Sunderland, Fulham and now ManUre, the game has slipped away from us in the 2nd half, and we have created very little. He watches, and does nothing. As far as formations go, he is willing to start a 4-4-2, or a 4-5-1, but my word the thought of switching it mid game has the manager cowering in the shadows.

[Surfer 1,547]

Parma Ham''s gone moldy ….

" We could clearly Observe that Wes was having an excellent game and receiving the ball regularly in uncomfortable areas for united.

We could also observe the Redmond was a regular threat to them that they failed to subdue (his product was erratic, but he caused them a structural issue).

Leaving these two players on was positive and aggressive as they were the likely sources of creating an equaliser.

The combination if these two drifting into the space ahead of the midfield was awkward for United and ensured that their defensive line rarely progressed forward.

Elmander offers neither the penetration of Redmond, nor the awkwardness of dealing with Hoolahan. Troubling united tactically is no mean feat and occasions risks defensively as discussed.

A further striker in the form of Elmander or Becchio would thus not have made us more threatening to united, which we were throughout, as it would have necessitated the removal of our key threats who were performing well on the day and already threatening. "

Question: So why not replace Snodgrass with Elmander? We now know RvW was a straight swap for Hooper as the latter had a tight hamstring…

[sgncfc 1,221]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"]-------------------Parma Ham''s gone mouldy--------

I watched the game as a coach. You watched it as a fan who has a premeditated dislike of the manager.

Any implication - whether direct or tangentially implied - that the management of the game was negative is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I don''t think the management was negative. I think, as with the last two games, he did exactly NOTHING to change the flow of the game when it was drifting away from us. Against Sunderland, Fulham and now ManUre, the game has slipped away from us in the 2nd half, and we have created very little. He watches, and does nothing. As far as formations go, he is willing to start a 4-4-2, or a 4-5-1, but my word the thought of switching it mid game has the manager cowering in the shadows.[/quote]

This is spot on. Hughton wasn''t at all negative, but when Moyes changed to 442 at half time we did nothing to counter, which meant that Fer and Johnson were effectively bypassed for the next 30 minutes and our fullbacks occupied as United played more to the flanks and away from our superior numbers in the middle - all it would have taken would have been to instruct Redmond and Snodgrass to stay wide and our middle two to drop slightly, but that didn''t happen until 10 minutes from the end.

Mr Hughton and his team have been shown to be tactically naïve on many occasions and they are frequently responsible for dropped points because they either can''t see or won''t react to what other managers do.

I agree that we played well overall today, but it isn''t enough for the investment made to play well every third game. We are halfway through the season and, whatever people want to believe, we are most definitely in a relegation fight. My point is simply that with the money spent and the quality of player we now have, that has to be the management''s responsibility.

[YankeeCanary 0]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]I watched the game as a coach. You watched it as a fan who has a premeditated dislike of the manager.

Any implication - whether direct or tangentially implied - that the management of the game was negative is simply wrong and grossly unfair.

Norwich were excellent today, Hughton took huge risks structurally to cause tactical problems for United throughout (Hughton cannot control end result, only patterns).

You are - not unreasonably as a fan - confusing result with process.[/quote]

Unless you are part of the Norwich City coaching team then, no, you did not watch the game as a coach. You watched as an observer just like the rest of us. The game plan along with any individual instruction would have been between the players and their coaches on the sidelines. How those instructions were executed ( or not ) is something that is known to them, not the rest of us. We all observed what was occurring on the pitch and have our respective likes/dislikes regarding what we see. You may have a keener eye for things because of your experience, Parma, but only those paid to do so in this case can watch the game executed from the perspective of the instructions they gave to the players.

[Rock The Boat 1,325]

quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy" I have played and coached in Italy and categorising today''s performance by Norwich is laughable.

Norwich were aggressive, pressed hard into attacking areas of the pitch and throughout the second half relied on one for one defending when United broke.

This would be considered suicidal in Italy. United overloaded the forward midfield areas to try to unbalance us and move us into reverse positions and we gambled by ignoring this and trying to cause them problems by allowing Redmond and Hoolahan to play fluidly and without strict defensive responsibility others than dropping into zonal areas after losing possession.

Norwich have recently also developed their defensive play by making greater efforts to retain the ball for longer in defensive areas, drawing forwards in to pass them out of the game. "Pissing about at the back" you call it in England.

"Football" you call it everywhere else.

I think your analysis is 100% correct Parma, and I also beleive that CH is trying to acheive that which you suggest.

Bassong invariably tries to play the ball out of defence when the situation presents itself. Though I have to say that many a time he has got it wrong and put the team in trouble. Didn''t the United goal come from a short, infield pass from Bassong to put Bennet under pressure?

And many a time in the first half Ruddy tried some short passes which again put us under needless pressure?

I agree with you that this is the way to play, out from the back, being very mobile and yet keeping our shape in case of turnover. Today we were doing this so well in the first half that we overran United.

I still see a lot of hesitancy, though, when we try to play out, as though the players really aren''t 100% sure what they are going to to when they have possession. It allows the opposition to close them down and forces us into errors.

There''s still a lot of work to be done in training, I believe, working on off-the-ball runs so that whoever is bring the ball out instinctively knows what his team-mates are going to do.

4-5-1 can be an attacking formation if players push up at speed and move the ball forwards rather than sideways. Wes is very good at this and today we saw him at his brilliant best.

For those who say that Hughton''s football is dire, against United, as Parma says, he took a massive gamble from his initial setup, playing both Hoolihan and Redmond, two players not known for their defensive qualities. That put a lot on responsibility onto Bradley Johnson who I thought did very well against the current Champions.

We are missing Tetty big-time. Just before his injury he looked very composed at the back of the midfield, bring the ball out of defense in the way that Parma suggests we need to do. We really need Tetty back in the side asap.

The United game captured the essence of our season to date, we saw the quality in the squad and we saw what they are capable of achieving when all singing from the same book. But we also saw the basic errors that led to United getting a lucky goal. We are inconsistent.

After so many unfortunate injuries CH has had to go back to the drawing board on so many occasions and rejig tactics and formations based upon what players were fit. Against United we have played some of the best football this season and I hope we continue to play in the same style and not try to shut-up shop in the hope of getting a point here and there to see us over the finishing line. Saturday showed that we are much better than that.

[ron obvious 1,499]

Yankee, saying PHgm isn''t watching as a coach is rather disingenuous. It''s like saying a surgeon watching an operation from a gallery is watching in the same way as a member of the public.

Excellent post as well from RTB.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Criticism of the Manager''s tactic are misplaced on this occasion.

The specific allegation that he "didn''t play 2 up" is simply wrong. As stated the way Wes and Redmond were asked to play meant they had limited defensive duties and Norwich played 1+2 up throughout. Indeed when Murphy came on this moved to 4 and by the end it was 5.

Moyes did not switch to 442. He used welbeck - as ferguson did many times, including when he dropped Rooney for a European cup QF vs Real Madrid - to create greater fluency between the lines. Welbeck does a great deal of defensive work and causes structural problems.

Hughton did the same with Wes and Redmond.

On today''s performance trying to characterise Hughton as defensive is wrong. Norwich played an extremely fluid game ( note Martin''s work) and changed shape throughout, to suggest that he doesn''t change things is wrong. Moyes did not go 442 so that is wrong. Norwich were more attacking than a flat 442, so that is also wrong.

I will point out the obvious that Norwich regularly DID play 442 today. The fluidity of their play meant that this occurred organically sometimes and not from meaningless starting positions on paper. Such rigidity wouldn''t trouble a good side and it was Norwich''s fluidity and movement that caused a good side difficulties.

(As a small aside, watch the goal Norwich conceded again. Bennett has time to roll the ball 3 yards to his right. It is because he launches it in frustration that the fortunate ricochet occurs. He may have been sending a message to Bassong that he thought his pass was sloppy, but Welbeck was actually not on top if him. Bennett is actually the defender who retains the ball the best and I like him, though on this occasion a Pique would have just nudged the ball sideways and possession would have been retained)

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

-------------Parma Ham''s gone mouldy-----------

On today''s performance trying to characterise Hughton as defensive is wrong. Norwich played an extremely fluid game and changed shape throughout, to suggest that he doesn''t change things is wrong.

------------------------------------------------

Of course we were fluid... Every premiership side is these days. But the simple fact is during that 2nd period we did not change our basic shape. We stuck, and we created 3 long punts. Moyes changed his formation, pushed Welbeck up just behind the striker, and his twist worked for them.

I don;t like this argument about 4-4-2, because in the past teams played such a formation with one striker further ahead than the other. The whole idea that 4-4-2 means two strikers standing next to two centre halfs is ridiculous.

Now we are down to 16 goals in 19 games, with one fluke in the last three matches. That desperately needs to change against Palace. Contrive to lose that and we will at best be 2 points, or possibly only 1 point or goal difference above the drop zone.

[the bristol nest 0]

This debate is reflected in the fact that Sky gave this as Game of the Day despite the only goal being a cock up on our behalf.

[Joanna Grey 0]

Thanks Ricardo for the report, always well appreciated here.

Loving PHGM''s observations.

Quick question though - I missed the last part of the match from when Murphy was brought on and he seemed to be getting a lot of instructions from the bench. Did Redmond switch to the right and Murphy go left or was it ''as you were''? Seems to me that their right back was having a bad game and Murphy could well have exploited that.

[thedarkside 0]

I thought that Moyes certainly changed the game with his substitutions. In the first half the two wide players for MU were getting absolutely nowhere against our defence. Martin in particular looked strong. So he switched tactics and asked Young and Welbeck to run at the centre of our defence. We have a shortage of pace and that, as much as anything, done us. I wish we would run at defences occasionally rather than continually try the wing play approach!!

[Rolf Harris 31]

Substitutions too late and not taking off a winger for a striker when needed.  Key things Hughton got wrong.

[Badger 2,405]

Thanks for the report Ricardo. As usual, balanced and thoughtful.An interesting discussion afterwards - thanks for the contributions of several including PHGM. Like some others, I think that simply putting another striker on would have had a negative affect on our chances of getting a goal. Basic rule is that you can''t score without the ball. We were most successful when we tried to stretch United and play the ball through them. After the goal, this became harder as they were happier to sit back and wait for us to expose ourselves (much hilarity ensues for some!). It seems to me that some (but of course, not all) seem to look at the player''s name and make assumptions about the formation. For example, Welbeck is mainly a striker so bringing him on meant that United switched to 442 (which they didn''t). In addition, many seem to regard playing 2 strikers as an "attacking move" but often it just makes a team more predictable and less fluid (as we saw against Fulham). The trouble is that we don''t have a player of the class of Welbeck who links attack and midfield - Hoolahan and Elmander have been those that have most often been used in a similar role, and despite the different qualities they bring to a team, they do not carry great goal threat. I think that Hughton is probably aware of this, hence so of the attacking midfield/ second striker options we were linked with in the summer.Final point, Pilkington''s and Howsons injuries removes a great deal of our goal threat. Redmond is an exciting young talent but the runs largely don''t produce an outcome.

[*** 0]

CH was a coward yesteday, rather than take a risk against a very weakend Manure side and try and equalize, he mentally settled for a 1 nil defeat .

 

He has to go.

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Wiz"]

CH was a coward yesteday, rather than take a risk against a very weakend Manure side and try and equalize, he mentally settled for a 1 nil defeat .

 

He has to go.

[/quote]He will still be here in May old pal, so you will have the entire summer to carry on with your campaign.[;)]

[morty 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Wiz"]

CH was a coward yesteday, rather than take a risk against a very weakend Manure side and try and equalize, he mentally settled for a 1 nil defeat .

 

He has to go.

[/quote]He will still be here in May old pal, so you will have the entire summer to carry on with your campaign.[;)][/quote]He''ll have burst a blood vessel before the season is out I fear.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Ches right hand man "]Substitutions too late and not taking off a winger for a striker when needed.  Key things Hughton got wrong. [/quote]

The idea that by putting another striker up front he wouldhave more chance of winning the game is ridiculous. If he takes off Redmond or Snodgrass for Elmander then he has to replace that winger with Wes which will weaken two areas of supply. The only way he could have accomodated Elmander up top would have been to replace Wes, like he finally did, and keep two genuine wide players on the pitch. I''m glad he didn''t do that earlier and I wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t done it at all. Our best chance of scoring was keeping the wide players and Wes ON.

 

 

[*** 0]

[quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Wiz"]

CH was a coward yesteday, rather than take a risk against a very weakend Manure side and try and equalize, he mentally settled for a 1 nil defeat .

 

He has to go.

[/quote]

He will still be here in May old pal, so you will have the entire summer to carry on with your campaign.[;)]
[/quote]

 

His position will be long untenable by then. ....................so don''t be too cock sure.

[Herman 9,715]

Wiz. With your expert football knowledge what would you have done differently to the cowardly Hughton?

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,424]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Ches right hand man "]Substitutions too late and not taking off a winger for a striker when needed.  Key things Hughton got wrong.
[/quote]

The idea that by putting another striker up front he wouldhave more chance of winning the game is ridiculous. If he takes off Redmond or Snodgrass for Elmander then he has to replace that winger with Wes which will weaken two areas of supply. The only way he could have accomodated Elmander up top would have been to replace Wes, like he finally did, and keep two genuine wide players on the pitch. I''m glad he didn''t do that earlier and I wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t done it at all. Our best chance of scoring was keeping the wide players and Wes ON.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I saw this as putting on a player more capable of winning a high ball in the last minutes of the game, than anything else. Most managers would expect to have to hit longer balls into the penalty area and Elmander is more likely to win them.   CH was looking for deadball restarts at this time and then loading key areas with taller players.  

[ricardo 7,347]

[quote user="Wiz"][quote user="ricardo"][quote user="Wiz"]

CH was a coward yesteday, rather than take a risk against a very weakend Manure side and try and equalize, he mentally settled for a 1 nil defeat .

 

He has to go.

[/quote]He will still be here in May old pal, so you will have the entire summer to carry on with your campaign.[;)][/quote]

 

His position will be long untenable by then. ....................so don''t be too cock sure.

[/quote]On balance I wouldn''t bet against him being here in May, but we are at the mercy of events so anything could happen.But I still think it probably won''t.

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The idea that by putting another striker up front he would have more chance of winning the game is ridiculous. If he takes off Redmond or Snodgrass for Elmander then he has to replace that winger with Wes which will weaken two areas of supply. The only way he could have accomodated Elmander up top would have been to replace Wes, like he finally did, and keep two genuine wide players on the pitch. I''m glad he didn''t do that earlier and I wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t done it at all. Our best chance of scoring was keeping the wide players and Wes ON.

 [/quote]

By changing nothing we created nothing aside from a couple of punts from outside the area. Given we created nothing for the first 30 minutes of the half I am surprised anyone is shocked we created nothing for the final 15 minutes.

As for Elmander, at that stage, 5 minutes to go, why not sacrifice a defender. Everyone was pushing up the park anyway - apart from RvW who seemed intent on playing midfield.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Graham Paddons Beard"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

[quote user="Ches right hand man "]Substitutions too late and not taking off a winger for a striker when needed.  Key things Hughton got wrong. [/quote]

The idea that by putting another striker up front he wouldhave more chance of winning the game is ridiculous. If he takes off Redmond or Snodgrass for Elmander then he has to replace that winger with Wes which will weaken two areas of supply. The only way he could have accomodated Elmander up top would have been to replace Wes, like he finally did, and keep two genuine wide players on the pitch. I''m glad he didn''t do that earlier and I wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t done it at all. Our best chance of scoring was keeping the wide players and Wes ON.

 

 

[/quote]

 

I saw this as putting on a player more capable of winning a high ball in the last minutes of the game, than anything else. Most managers would expect to have to hit longer balls into the penalty area and Elmander is more likely to win them.   CH was looking for deadball restarts at this time and then loading key areas with taller players.  

[/quote]

 

Yes I agree that''s why he finally made the change. But I wouldn''t have made it any earlier and wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t made it at all. I think by far our best chance of scoring was having Wes exactly where he was.

 

 

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]Yes I agree that''s why he finally made the change. But I wouldn''t have made it any earlier and wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t made it at all. I think by far our best chance of scoring was having Wes exactly where he was.[/quote]And yet just last week and at various other points in the season, I was told bringing Wes on and switching to a 4-5-1 would make no difference at all. I just don''t buy it I''m afraid.  We very rarely try and switch formation during a game under the current regime. It is a weakness in Hughton''s management.

[nutty nigel 7,509]

[quote user="Citizen Journalist Foghorn"][quote user="nutty nigel"]

The idea that by putting another striker up front he would have more chance of winning the game is ridiculous. If he takes off Redmond or Snodgrass for Elmander then he has to replace that winger with Wes which will weaken two areas of supply. The only way he could have accomodated Elmander up top would have been to replace Wes, like he finally did, and keep two genuine wide players on the pitch. I''m glad he didn''t do that earlier and I wouldn''t have cared if he hadn''t done it at all. Our best chance of scoring was keeping the wide players and Wes ON.

 [/quote]

By changing nothing we created nothing aside from a couple of punts from outside the area. Given we created nothing for the first 30 minutes of the half I am surprised anyone is shocked we created nothing for the final 15 minutes.

As for Elmander, at that stage, 5 minutes to go, why not sacrifice a defender. Everyone was pushing up the park anyway - apart from RvW who seemed intent on playing midfield.

[/quote]

 

You''re just scraping the barrell to come up with something that you can say he got wrong. At a push I guess he could have sacrificed Olsson but that would have weakened our supply from the left. Martin, Bennett and Bassong would be equally as dangerous as Elmander from set plays.